This is not an MMO, so there is no benefit to a public beta of patches as there is no "permanent" impact by simply implementing changes live and changing them later if it is necessary.  If there is anything game-breaking, they simply hot patch it in a timely fashion, which they have already done twice now.

It's simply an unnecessary layer that would add more for their employees to monitor, thus adding to their workload.

Everything seems to be working just fine as is.

The poblem wasnt testing. The crashing was known about, problem was they decided to release anyway. Apparently they considered a buggy program ready for release, or so they say.

I sincerely hope I don't lock this thread, I'm simply speaking the truth, which it turns out, people often don't like hearing. Anyway, I am always shocked when people start making excuses when someone doesn't do their job correctly.

Just look at any modern game released on the consoles, they work fine for the most part, sure they ALL have a few bugs but I honestly hardly ever see them, if they are there they are usually very minor and don't distract from the game. They also work.

You have two issues with Elemental here:

1. Crashes, stability and various hardware configuration issues. This is legitimate, PC software has to deal with this and it's a total pain in the ass, BUT Stardock built Kumquat, a brand new game engine and they set the bar very high to support very low end machines and very high end machines and that means: a whole lot of hardware configurations, but they clearly did not test it on all those hardware configurations, they bit off more than they could chew here it sounds like to me. So you get all the stability issues and crashes etc.

2. The game wasn't balanced and frankly while its much better it still isn't where it should be. This is where testing or QA or whatever you call it completely failed, I personally question if it was ever there considering where the game was a mere 2 weeks ago and before that. There are lots of ways to test as well, you don't always need people, you can also just automate things like tactical combat, so that it literally does run billions of tests against all sorts of unit combination and create some measurements to see where things were grossly off the charts and unbalanced, so you could then go fix them, this, from what I could tell, probably never happened.

The console argument is true with hardware, its standardized, it's easier to support because of that. However you STILL have to test the game out and make sure balance issues are worked out and ensure the thing properly explains how things work and make sure the book matches up with the game. Please, don't make excuses for why they didn't do what they should have done. I believe they have at least admitted to the issues but making excuses for why it went this way is just the wrong way to go.

FYI, most companies already have external QA test groups to go with their internal QA team.  I've been in some myself, mostly not fun.  Unlike Stardock's open beta process, when most companies start up an external test group on a game(as opposed to the pr betas which are minor polish and mostly advertising after such QA teams have already had a crack at it) they're under NDA, so you never hear about it.

I was held under the NDA I signed for beta testing Warlords: Battlecry 3(don't blame me for the balance, I bitched, profusely:() when they hit me up for QA and market research for Enlight.  I got to play a rather colorful rpg called Scrapland a couple months before it was released, found lots and lots of defects, and gave suggestions and opinions on the various mechanics.  A wonderful experience really, alpha testing Zoo Empire on the other hand... I still have nightmares!

You'd never hear about it at the time though, just disclosing that I had the game would have been a very big no no, potentially ending with my ass in court were they feeling litigious.  Only after product release would I be allowed to disclose anything.  QA is rarely just a group of on site employees, and they're almost never allowed to talk about it.  Idiots repeating word of mouth on a product that gets changed in the interim can cause rather severe damage to a products sales, so they try to keep a lid on such things.

I love how people always line up to point out the "error of our ways". We like the core of the game, we see the huge potential, and we want to see it improved. Both the community and Stardock reached out to each other, so we're trying to make the most out of it.

This is the state the game is in and people care about it enough to have it changed for the better. What better way to do so than to utilize the community. It's not like we're doing it for free - we're promised two expansions for free. In purely economic terms, it is a risk for both sides - Stardock wants the game to succeed, so it's taking a risk with further investment into the game taking the player input into account, hoping to recoup on lost sales and trust later. We are sticking with our investment because of the potential of this product becoming what we want, and being rewarded with more gaming goodness for it. Both sides have to make a leap of faith.

Although I really think this whole issue has a much more human face and it would help things tremendously if people stopped dragging pure economics into the equation. If Brad is indeed a hardcore capitalist, he is the most honest/kindest one in the world.

I am sorry this is economically and, perhaps more importantly - humanely - irrational to you.

Those who are complaining about the game already own it. Hence they own it prior to v1.1. Therefore, according to Brad, they will receive the second expansion for free.

If you actually read Stardock's policy, you can request a refund within the first 90 (I believe, lazy to search for it) days after purchase.

Finally, if your time is all that valuable, why vaste it here?

As much as I would also like the QA improved like the OP, I strongly concur with Rabenhoff on this subject.  Paying customers should never be treated like QA or expected to find and report bugs.  If SD wants to try something like proposed then they need to find willing Beta Testers who are not required to purchase the game.  I'd rather wait but I also have a higher quality bar to be met or higher expectation for being a paying customer.

I have read other posts about people shelving this game for a month or two and I'm starting to think that might be a sound idea.  As much as I really want to play it some of the rebalancing is not making any sense and there is no forth-comming explanation as far as I have looked for one and asked for one.  I was a fan and now I am on the fence...

That is not the reality of the situation.  They were not fully aware of the crashing.  Stop dredging up old crap and then spinning it falsely.